No executive orders posted on the White House website about guns and gun control.

To be kind, Michael Moore is a strange guy with a bit of an unusual and yet not so unusual way of seeing things. He posted a rant on his website blaming the NRA for a violent society and is demanding that authorities(?) or somebody, release all the gory and gruesome photos of the crime scene at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

Moore’s not necessarily all wrong. Perhaps angry and misguided, hypocritical, non inclusive, ignorant and asking for things he doesn’t understand. I guess all of these things make him not that unusual from the general public.

Moore places the blame on the NRA – at least he does in this screed. The blame is based on two concepts as much as I can gather from what he is saying; one, that the NRA is the cause of a violent society, and two, it is so because the existence of guns causes violence. Like one would expect from an inmate of Hollyweird, Moore would never finger his own brothers’ and sisters’ culture of glorifying violence in movies, music and video games as having any influence in violent behavior. Of course we know, because they have told us, being subjected to hours of their filthy crap has no negative effects on humans.

I’m not a big fan of the NRA much because the biggest thing they have managed to accomplish during this latest round of anti gun assault, is make lots of money. The NRA puts up a pretty good front that they are in support of Second Amendment rights, and they are – albeit limited rights – right after they make sure their source of income remains viable and their political exchanges in Washington continue to be those of the good-ole-boys-club.

The Guardian reports that the NRA has been comparatively silent on the upcoming vote that will take place at the U.N. Conference on Arms Trade in New York City. The report claims this is so because the NRA is spread too thin due to its efforts to fight anti gun bills and fallout rhetoric after the events in Newtown, Connecticut. I’m not so sure that is the real case. With the NRA’s resources, can it be true that they can barely muster a respectable cry of opposition to having foreign entities dictate to Americans our gun rights? Or is maybe Newtown a convenient smoke screen in order that they agreeably cannot fight back? Perhaps those good-ole-boys hammered out an “understanding” the last time President Obama went skeet shooting with his “buds”?

But Michael Moore states that the NRA will be brought down by getting those bloody and messy pictures of murdered children released for the public to see. His theory is based on the history of slavery, civil rights and Vietnam; a bit of apples and oranges I think. Moore’s ignorance comes from having no real knowledge and understanding of who and what was behind all of these events and that images released to the mainstream media for mass circulation is done so for no other reason than to alter public opinion. Moore’s notion that releasing pictures of dead kids will bring down the NRA, lacks in understanding that any pictures that do or do not get released will have nothing to do with him asking for such or his desire to “bring down” the NRA. I’m not sure Moore understands that media mind manipulation works the same for all sides when implemented for a designed purpose. In other words, if the ruling elite really wanted to “bring down” the NRA and the ruling elite believed releasing photos of dead kids would do the trick, I think we would have seen those photos by now. Perhaps they are being held for other reasons or there exists details about Sandy Hook few have been privy to.

Michael Moore is a tool and good one at that. He, even if just with his personality, keeps the anger and division among Americans at a fevered pitch, much as President Obama likes it to be; therefore the tool label. To express such disdain toward gun owners and the NRA as being the root cause of a violent society, makes one wonder to what extent of violence a person like this would go in order to be a liked member of the True Believers? Fight violence with violence?

Yesterday in my post about Barack Obama’s non existent executive orders on gun control, I wrote about Byron, Maine, a town that had voted on a proposal to mandate all homes have a gun. Billy Hallowell, at The Blaze, says that mandating gun ownership is constitutional because it was done years ago to insure the citizen militias had enough guns and were available immediately in case they were needed to defend national interests and oppose tyranny.

One can’t argue with that and for those same reasons, if they existed today, I would agree to a mandate of gun ownership. But that is not the case……or is it? Have we reached a point that our own government has become so tyrannical that it wants complete control over all of us that we need to mandate gun ownership? Share your thoughts below in the comments if you wish.